Total oil fr
===
see defectors
see big 4 FF
---
---
SEE WIND 3 ANNO
AN 3 26
On Monday, President Trump’s Department of the Interior announced that it will refund almost $1 billion to a French multinational oil company.
This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.
The company, TotalEnergies, had spent that amount during the Biden administration to secure two leases allowing it to build offshore wind farms in the Atlantic Ocean. The Trump administration, which has taken every step possible to block offshore wind development, is so opposed to this possibility that it’s paying Total to give up those leases — which the company wasn’t even using — in exchange for a promise that Total will invest the money in oil and gas projects off the U.S. Gulf Coast — which it was already doing.
“This is a backdoor deal done with zero transparency, no public process, and no consideration of the impacts to ratepayers in states that had been planning on that offshore wind to meet their energy needs,” said Elizabeth Klein, who led the federal Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under former President Joe Biden.
The administration may have been trying to buy Total off to avoid litigation, according to Hannes Pfeifenberger, principal at the economic consulting firm the Brattle Group. The French company purchased its offshore wind lease in the coastal area known as the New York-New Jersey Bight for a historically high amount, paying around four times the typical per-acre rate for such leases. Were the administration to attempt to block development, Total might have sued to avoid losing its entire investment.
“[Trump’s Interior Department] might have been responsible for damages if the offshore wind developers sued the government for selling them leases and then basically making permitting impossible,” said Pfeifenberger, adding that other developers who purchased leases in the same auction might now look to take the same path out.
But Klein and other industry experts also noted that the settlement does not deal a permanent blow to offshore wind development, beyond moves the Trump administration had already taken: Trump has already frozen all offshore wind lease auctions and vowed to oppose any new wind farm construction. At worst, the settlement will just set the timeline on new offshore wind development back by a few more years. Though Total’s ocean rights will return to the government for now, a future president could lease them out to another energy company.
“Obviously no one expects this administration to be conducting any offshore wind lease sales, but future administrations will,” said Klein.
There are other ways that the settlement may be less significant than it seems. Industry experts say most companies that hold ocean leases are looking to offload them or let them sit undeveloped until Trump is out of office. Even before this payoff, most experts believed that wind companies would not return to the Atlantic without legislative reform to protect approved permits from executive interference.
The oil side of the settlement is even more confusing. The Interior Department’s announcement says that TotalEnergies will “invest approximately $1 billion — the value of its renounced offshore wind leases — in oil and natural gas,” including offshore oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico and a liquefied natural gas, or LNG, facility in Texas. But the company is already plowing billions of dollars into new offshore platforms, and it made a “final investment decision” on an expansion of its Texas LNG facility last year. The lease refund would only go to offset these existing investments, not to generate new infrastructure the company hadn’t already planned.
A statement from TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné announcing the deal contained multiple grammatical errors, and it ended on a humdrum note, with the executive saying “we believe this is a more efficient use of capital.”
As for the debate in the U.S. Senate around so-called permitting reform legislation to secure energy projects from cancellation, the settlement with Total has done nothing to disrupt negotiations. That’s a stark contrast to what happened after the administration’s previous stop-work order on five under-construction wind farms in December, which caused bipartisan Congressional negotiations to collapse. Speaking to reporters last Friday, Senate Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse said that permitting reform talks are proceeding apace despite the new settlement.
“So far, so good, with respect to addressing substantive issues,” said Whitehouse, who represents Rhode Island and is known for his leadership on climate and energy issues. He noted that the Trump administration has declined to appeal any of the court injunctions against its actions targeting the five active wind farms.
“At the moment, I think they’re getting a strong signal from Republicans and Democrats in the Senate: Knock it off, cut out the nonsense,” he said.
This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/politics/trump-interior-offshore-wind-total/.
---
AN 2 26
President Donald Trump’s decision last month to invade Venezuela has not persuaded Total Energies, one of the Big Oil companies Trump urged to return to the country, that overthrowing former President Nicolás Maduro will be good for business.
Although Trump is insisting Big Oil will invest heavily in US-occupied Venezuela because they “have Trump as a president,” TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné told reporters that his company initially quit the country in 2022 for reasons that Trump's invasion has not changed.
"It was too expensive and too polluting," Pouyanné explained, "and that is still the case.”
Pouyanné is not alone among Big Oil CEOs to not back Trump's Venezuela policy. After visiting the White House and speaking with Trump, Exxon CEO Darren Woods made headlines for saying that the Venezuelan market is “uninvestable” in its current state. Trump responded by raging at Woods, threatening to sideline Exxon because its leader was, in Trump's words, “playing too cute.”
Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton predicted in January that, despite Trump’s claim oil companies would happily invest in Venezuela, his own actions raised questions about the financial wisdom of doing so.
“If I were an oil company executive being pressured by Trump to invest billions of dollars of capital expenditures to revive Venezuela's oil infrastructure, I would want a regime in place committed to the rule of law,” Bolton said.
This lack of political stability can, according to critics, be laid at Trump’s feet. Earlier this month retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling wrote in the conservative publication The Bulwark that although he had no criticisms of Trump’s initial invasion, he believes the administration is flying blind when it comes to how to reconstruct the country.
"One month ago, the United States launched a dramatic military operation in Caracas that ended with the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife," Hertling said. "The military strike was fast, precise, and unmistakably American in its execution. Within hours, President Trump and various Cabinet officials stood before cameras to declare success, describe the removal of a criminal regime, and suggest the beginning of a new chapter for Venezuela."
Hertling continued, "They implied the end of Venezuela's longstanding authoritarian leadership. Tactically, it was executed with precision. But the immediate aftermath revealed a strategic uncertainty. Even in the (Trump) Administration's first press briefings, it was unclear who was in charge in Caracas, what authority Washington claimed to exercise, and what political end state the United States was pursuing. That ambiguity has not improved with time."
---
GMAIL 10 25
NO LNX MANY
In this issue:
Record breaking climate disasters in 2025 ⬇️
Big Oil’s predicted “catastrophic events” are coming true in Jamaica ⬇️
A major win in French court ⬇️
Let’s get into it.
Here's the Latest
Americans are spending more than ever on climate disasters. Of the $20 trillion in GDP growth the U.S. has seen since 2000, $7.7 trillion — or about 36% — stems from spending to recover from or prepare for climate disasters. No wonder Big Oil is scared of paying its fair share.
Climate disasters during the first half of 2025 were the costliest on record, new data shows. Fourteen different weather disasters battered the U.S. in the first six months of the year, racking up $101 billion in damages — and taxpayers are being left to foot the bill.
“We’ve got extremely lucky we’ve not had any bigger disasters than we’ve already had this year. We are basically sitting ducks for when the next major disaster hits.”
Emergency management expert Samantha Montano
Hurricane Melissa is barreling toward Jamaica, bringing an estimated 40 inches of rain and the threat of “catastrophic” flooding. Sound familiar? That’s because Exxon warned in 1982 that if the use of fossil fuels was not reduced, it could cause “potentially catastrophic” climate events.
Voters want to hold Big Oil accountable
Across the U.S., voters of all stripes — and political ideologies — support holding fossil fuel companies accountable for climate change costs. When people hear more about Big Oil’s decades-long deception and the actual dollar costs of climate change, support often increases.
CCI’s polling has found that more than two-thirds of nationwide voters support suing oil companies to pay for climate damages.
READ THE POLLS
Dig Deeper
Big Oil is not a partner in the energy transition, new research shows
Big Oil companies are contributing minuscule amounts of renewable energy to the global market, a new study found — contradicting industry claims that fossil fuel companies are partners in climate solutions. The research comes at a time when fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, and Chevron are facing a growing number of lawsuits that argue the companies are deceiving the public about their role in the climate crisis through false or misleading advertising and other means.
The study, published in Nature Sustainability, found that, despite years of advertising to the contrary, the largest 250 oil and gas companies own just 1.42% of global renewable energy capacity in operation, more than half of which can be attributed to renewable energy operations that the fossil fuel companies acquired.
Of the Big Oil companies headquartered in North America and Europe — including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron — renewable energy makes up less than half a percent of each company’s energy generation.
READ THE BLOG
On The Record
TAP INTO THE CLIMATE ACCOUNTABILITY CONVERSATION
Imagine how much more progress could have been made to secure cheaper and cleaner energy if these giant polluters had not fought so hard to keep us hooked on their dirty products. Now the local costs of fossil-fueled climate change are falling on our residents while the corporations that imposed them on us pay nothing."
Maryland Senator Pamela Beidle in the Baltimore Sun.
Legal Action Against Big Oil
French oil giant TotalEnergies is misleading consumers with claims about its "net-zero ambitions" and role in the energy transition, a Paris court ruled this month. The ruling is the first of its kind.
ExxonMobil sued the state of California last week over new laws that would require the oil giant to disclose its greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. “They’re scared they won’t be able to greenwash anymore,” California Senator Scott Wiener said about the suit. California already has two ongoing lawsuits that seek to hold Exxon accountable for deceiving the public about climate change and plastic recycling.
More than 60 survivors of Super Typhoon Odette are suing Shell in UK court, demanding the fossil fuel major pay for the damages the climate-charged disaster caused in the Philippines. The lawsuit is the first civil claim to directly link polluters to deaths and personal injuries that have already happened in the global south.
ICYMI
(IN CASE YOU MISSED IT)
🥤 Big Soda wants to turn MAGA against MAHA — and Big Oil’s fingerprints are all over it.
🤨 A Los Angeles Times investigation into how Exxon went "from embracing the science of climate change to publicly questioning it" was published 10 years ago last week. Evidence unearthed in that piece has been cited in a growing number of lawsuits against the oil giant.
🔎 READ: Trump and Republicans Join Big Oil’s All-Out Push to Shut Down Climate Liability Efforts
Check out this post ⬇️
You may have heard that the pesticide industry is seeking a liability shield from Congress — but did you know that the fossil fuel industry is also seeking legal immunity from Congress? Big Oil is fighting tooth and nail to escape a growing number of lawsuits that could make them pay for lying about the climate and health harms of their polluting products.
CCI’s President Richard Wiles explains why every American should oppose efforts to put these powerful industries above the law.
WATCH HERE
Who is cheerleading for Big Oil?
John Yoo thinks that communities shouldn’t have the right to sue Big Oil for lying about the safety of their products.
The law professor has also been accused of war crimes and been investigated for violations of domestic and international law. 🙄
WATCH HERE
Until next time 👋,
Isabella Garcia
Communications Strategist, Center for Climate Integrity
---
===
Taking The Climate Killers To Court
12 24 THE LEVER
ON a cold October Saturday in 2020, Elisa got a panicked call from her brother in France. He hadn’t heard from their mother in several days.
In the hazy hours of caring for a newborn, Elisa hadn’t known a major storm was pummeling Europe. Abnormally warm air had risen above Greenland, swirling into a cyclone that swept toward the Alps. When Storm Alex finally made landfall, it dropped 19 inches of rain over the course of the next day, the equivalent of six months’ average precipitation. Flash floods began to pour down the mountain sides, the worst deluge since France began keeping records 120 years ago.
All communications to the Vésubie Valley, where their mother lived in southeastern part of the country, were cut off. (To protect her family’s privacy, Elisa asked to be identified only by her first name.)
Elisa tried calling the emergency hotline in nearby Nice, the closest city, but the road to her mother’s village had been destroyed, and hundreds of people were evacuated. In the chaos, no one could tell them if she had managed to get out.
So Elisa got online. Into the dark hours of the night, she watched video after video of floodwaters sweeping houses away. “I was trying to find any footage, like anything on the Internet,” she says, “trying to see her home.”
Each time she clicked a new video and witnessed another house crumbling, or someone with a flashlight wading through the murky floodwaters, her breath caught. “I was like, ‘Oh my God, where [is] my mom? What happened to her?” she says. As the clips blurred together, a dawning horror began to pierce Elisa’s shock.
Meanwhile, her brother and uncle hiked on foot over a mountain into St. Martin Vésubie. Elisa waited anxiously by her phone until William found enough reception to call his sister. “There was no trace,” he told her. The house had been torn completely off its foundation. Eventually, her brother tracked down an emergency responder, who said by the time officials tried to evacuate that part of the valley, it was already too late. Land routes were impossible, and rescue helicopters couldn’t withstand the gale-force winds.
It would take another ten days for her mother’s body to be found. Even then, her remains were only discovered because a neighbor noticed wolves behind his house. “I guess they were smelling the body decomposing,” Elisa says. Her mother was only 67 years old.
A photo of the soil where Elisa’s mother’s body was found. Credit: Elisa
Watching the familiar made strange in all those videos, Elisa immediately wondered about the climate’s role. Storm Alex hit unusually early in the season; the national weather service Météo-France later found that these kinds of extreme events have intensified by 22 percent since 1961.
This spring, she and her brother became two of eight plaintiffs in a criminal lawsuit targeting TotalEnergies, a French oil company that’s one of the world’s six largest carbon emitters. It’s the first-ever attempt to claim polluters are guilty of homicide.
The involuntary manslaughter case claims that TotalEnergies’ board of directors and its main shareholders, like global asset company BlackRock, have deliberately endangered the lives of others. Each offense in the lawsuit is punishable with at least a year in prison, as well as a fine. (TotalEnergies did not respond to requests for comment.)
Climate disasters, including this summer’s extreme heat, are claiming ever more lives. At the same time, advances in science have made it possible to pinpoint the responsibility for the emissions that caused these catastrophes, meaning the world can begin trying to hold the culprits accountable.
While dozens of civil cases have already been filed against fossil fuel companies, some believe that to capture the true scale of climate crimes — and their growing death toll — companies should also be tried for homicide. Advocates in the United States and abroad hope these cases can help spur urgent changes.
“When I saw the images of that storm, I was like, my mom died [from] climate change,” Elisa says. Now, she’s trying to bring those responsible to justice.
Identifying The Suspects
Oil has always been a bloody business. In the heady days following World War I, when the internal combustion engine transformed armies and navies, governments began to scramble for control over the fuel of the future. In 1924, France’s prime minister created a private company, Compagnie française des pétroles, to secure petroleum access. A few years later, it sent several geologists into the dry wadis of Mesopotamia, what is today’s Iraq.
The employees camped in tents near the low hills of Kirkuk, where a steam engine drove a drill bit through the night. Then, ninety-three years before Storm Alex hit France, as dawn rose over the desert, crude oil burst out of the ground. A huge geyser shimmered into billowing clouds. “A black cloud hung like an upturned umbrella,” an eyewitness recalled. Before the well could be capped, close to a million barrels of oil spilled onto the sands. The company’s first Middle East strike was also its first environmental disaster.
After a few decades of discoveries and acquisitions, the Compagnie française des pétroles rebranded as Total, a name specifically chosen because it “hinted at the Group’s intention to expand.” Today, the company is still planning more new fossil fuel development than almost any other.
TotalEnergies’ central role in the climate crisis weighs heavily on Hadrien Goux, an anti-fossil fuel campaigner at the French nonprofit Bloom Association, one of several organizations behind the climate homicide case Elisa and seven other victims filed this spring.
Sitting in his office in Paris, Goux’s dressed casually in a cheerful graphic shirt with clashing colors, but his face’s angular lines grow serious as he argues that it’s time to move beyond civil lawsuits against major oil companies, since they’ve failed to spur systematic changes.
“The main objective of our litigation is really to hold [TotalEnergies] responsible for past decisions, and past and current and future impacts of climate change,” he says.
To support the case, Bloom and its collaborators have turned to attribution researchers, scientists trying to determine how climate change is intensifying extreme weather. It’s now possible to say with confidence just how much warmer temperatures have contributed to a particular heat wave or hurricane, says Fredi Otto, a senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute for Climate Science at Imperial College London.
Otto is one of the world’s leading climate attribution researchers. In 2015, she formed a group of international scientists called World Weather Attribution, who quantify how climate change influences the intensity and likelihood of disasters in almost real time, circumventing the lengthy academic process that normally takes years.
They’ve now conducted dozens of rapid attribution studies. When the Pacific Northwest hit a record-shattering 116 degrees in 2021, for example, World Weather Attribution found less than two weeks later that the heat dome was “virtually impossible” without climate change.
Otto explains that advances in computing power have increased climate models’ accuracy and precision, as well as made it much easier to combine them, increasing confidence in their results.
“A few years ago, many people were still thinking this is uncertain,” she says, “and I think that has changed.”
Otto says that robust research now clearly supports the argument that the emissions of a company like TotalEnergies have made climate change worse, and that warming temperatures have led to more people in certain regions dying. “There’s just nothing scientifically you can say against that,” she says.
She recently spoke to defense attorneys in states from Oregon to Texas who are considering pursuing climate homicide lawsuits, an experience that she says highlighted the difference in how scientists and lawyers think about uncertainty. Researchers like her see calculating uncertainty as a sign of a study’s strengths, whereas lawyers see it as liability.
To avoid this conflict, Otto encouraged the prosecutors to think about qualitative statements that can be made with very high levels of certainty, like the fact that major oil companies’ emissions knowingly and definitively made heatwaves worse, rather than focusing on specific numbers, such as the exact degree of change compared to historical temperatures.
But attribution science hasn’t yet had its day in court, says Delta Merner, the lead scientist for climate litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who develops scientific evidence to support legal cases. Courtrooms often lag behind science: It took many years to bring DNA evidence into criminal cases, for example.
“The scientific community needs to be thinking about the needs of the litigation community,” Merner says, “asking relevant questions in time to be meaningful for court cases.”
Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence has been gathering to support these types of legal arguments. In 2017, Merner’s colleagues used attribution analysis to find that 90 companies contributed to over half of all global temperature rise. More than half of these emissions were produced after 1986, they write, “the period in which the climate risks of fossil fuel combustion were well established.”
Merner herself published a paper last year finding the emissions from a similar list of fossil fuel companies were responsible for more than a third of the total area burned by forest fires in North America. “Just to give you an idea, that’s roughly equivalent to the size of the state of Maine,” she says — forest that otherwise might not have burned.
Now, groups like Bloom are hoping to use this kind of research to demonstrate how oil and gas companies like TotalEnergies are directly responsible for deaths of people like Elisa’s mother.
“This causal link could end up being a proof for the judges of the link between activities of fossil fuel companies, and impacts of climate change,” Goux says.
Collecting The Evidence
Watching it rain during Rhode Island’s winters when it used to snow depressed Aaron Regunberg, but it wasn’t until he decided to have a kid that he felt the creeping changes around him with a new urgency. What would winters be like for his son, when he reached adulthood?
These kinds of questions prompted Regunberg, as senior climate policy counsel at the non-profit think tank Public Citizen, to try to lay the groundwork for potential U.S. climate homicide cases.
The first challenge, he says, is establishing the causal chain between a fossil fuel company’s conduct and climate-related deaths. To do so, you have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a company’s emissions contributed to climate change, which caused a climate-related disaster, which led to someone’s death.
“We should be thinking of those harms not just as tragedies, but as crimes,” he says.
“We should be thinking of those harms not just as tragedies, but as crimes.”
In the United States, the law considers some killings worse than others, separated in degree from negligence to extreme indifference to human life. The least serious homicide charge Public Citizen believes that fossil fuel companies can be tried for is negligent homicide, meaning that the company caused deaths through their careless behavior. The most would be second-degree murder, which implies acting with indifference to human life.
In addition to how recklessly someone acts, their intent also matters, a legal concept sometimes called mens rea.You don’t necessarily have to intend to kill someone to be charged. If “you basically knew if you do this thing, people are probably going to die, and you did it anyway,” Regunberg says, that’s a crime.
It’s surprisingly easy to show that oil companies knew that their behavior was harmful — decades earlier than they admitted to the public. All the way back in 1965, the American Petroleum Institute found that fossil fuels were causing rising amounts of carbon dioxide.
“The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequences of pollution, but time is running out,” the institute’s President, Frank Ikard, wrote then. “Carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at such a rate that by the year 2000, the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts.”
The consequences were well understood within the industry. Last year, researchers at Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found that forty years ago, ExxonMobil also knew the repercussions of their business with shocking precision. In the 1980s, company scientists projected fossil fuel burning would cause around 0.2 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade.
“We find that most of their projections accurately forecast warming consistent with subsequent observations,” the researchers concluded in their 2023 report.
But there was a huge gap between what ExxonMobil knew and what it told the public. Oil companies denied and delayed releasing this kind of information, spending millions on research and campaigns to refute climate science.
Between 1989 and 2004, for example, ExxonMobil ran ads intended to seed doubt about warming temperatures.
ExxonMobil continues to use third-party groups to mask its involvement. Former ExxonMobil lobbyist Keith McCoy admitted in 2021 to Unearthed,a journalism project funded by the environmental nonprofit Greenpeace, “Did we join some of these ‘shadow groups’ to work against some of the early efforts on climate? Yes… Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes.” (ExxonMobil did not respond to requests for comment.)
These strategies make it difficult to calculate the true extent of fossil fuel companies’ ongoing spending on climate denial. Well-known conservative foundations consistently fund these tactics, including through groups like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, which as donor-advised funds are not required to disclose their funding sources.
Billionaire Charles Koch, who made his fortune in oil, has funneled at least $8 million — and likely much more untraceably — through Donors Trust. In 2022, Donors Trust in turn gave more than a million to the climate-denying Heartland Institute; roughly $600,000 to the American Enterprise Institute, which has claimed “climate change is not an existential threat”; and $130,000 to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which in 2009 called global warming “man-made hysteria.”
This dark money has buoyed the efforts of fossil fuel companies. ExxonMobil, for example, has continued to publish advertising in the New York Times with misleading statements about unproven biofuels, while companies like Shell and BP spend millions on climate branding, despite only investing negligible amounts in renewable energy.
Regunberg argues that companies’ potentially criminal recklessness hinges not just on their total greenhouse gas contributions, but on their ongoing duplicity.
“They deceive the public about the dangers,” he says, “specifically in order to produce, market, and sell fossil fuels.”
This misinformation campaign has undeniably made climate change worse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s sixth assessment report directly blames “vested economic and political interests for organising and financing misinformation and ‘contrarian’ climate change communication” for delaying climate action.
Underscoring how industry influence shapes American climate policy, Project 2025, a lengthy manifesto that outlines goals for a future Republican administration, aims to “stop the war on oil and natural gas,” cut clean energy programs, and abolish the national climate assessment, a federal report that monitors the impacts of climate change.
Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has overtly promised to aid the oil and gas industry, going so far as to ask executives from companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips for $1 billion in campaign donations.
But distinguishing between fossil fuel companies and the people working for them isn’t always straight-forward. Public Citizen acknowledges this could be a legal challenge, but explains that in most jurisdictions, companies can be held criminally liable for the behavior of their employees, or activities done at the behest of the company. The CEO and top management, Regunburg argues, controlled decisions about the quantity of oil production, marketing and advertising of decisions, and how they communicated the link between climate change and fossil fuels.
“And they were absolutely aware of the decades of internal research,” Regunberg says, “precisely predicting the exact climate harms that we’re seeing now.”
In July, Public Citizen published a prosecutorial memo outlining a potential legal strategy for trying such a case in the U.S., using a lethal heat wave in Phoenix last year as an example. As temperatures stayed above 110 degrees for a record-breaking 31 days, an average of 13 people died from the heat every day.
The task will require rethinking the definition of violent crime, says Cindy Cho, who after a decade as a federal prosecutor now teaches at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. At a recent Public Citizen meeting, she explained that when she first read the proposal, she was pretty skeptical. But the longer she thought about it, the more enthusiastic she became.
In Arizona, for example, research shows the extended heat wave likely wouldn’t have occurred without climate change. The heat was the direct cause of death for hundreds of victims.
“It is violence,” Cho says, “And prosecutors are concerned with looking for solutions to violence.”
She points to legal precedents in cases against Big Tobacco, which just like fossil fuel companies, once marshaled a formidable arsenal of lawyers, deep-pocketed budgets, and widespread advertising. For years, the tobacco industry argued people chose to use their products and that there was no definitive proof of their harms, efforts that were accompanied by aggressive lobbying.
But in the 1990s, mounting scientific evidence undermined the companies’ claims. Leaked documents and whistleblowers emerged, proving that the companies knew their products were dangerous. A turning point came when state attorneys general began filing civil lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers for deaths and illnesses caused by smoking.
Regunberg believes that the threat of matters escalating to criminal charges led the corporations to come to the table — leading to a major $206 billion settlement agreement that substantially shaped public opinion about the dangers of tobacco products.
Cho believes a similar process may now play out for oil companies. “Drawing a line from one person’s decisions to five people down the line, that’s the prosecutor’s work,” she says.
Of course, oil companies disagree they should be held responsible for the emissions they’ve made possible. “We expect the oil majors to use as much defense as they can,” says Goux at Bloom. Since their lawsuit was filed in France this spring, Goux says TotalEnergies has argued that it was being singled out, that other companies behaved worse, and that its pollution was the responsibility of consumers using its products.
Legally, prosecutors don’t have to prove that fossil fuel companies were the only or exclusive cause of climate-induced deaths — just that they contributed in a significant way. In previous civil lawsuits, even small amounts of emissions, like 2.5 percent of global totals, have been considered a meaningful contribution to climate harms.
Blaming consumers is also a tenuous defense. Companies like TotalEnergies may try to claim that the people burning the fuels they produce in their cars or houses breaks the chain of causation, but it will be hard to argue that companies didn’t foresee their products being used just as they were intended.
Regunberg says his goal for climate homicide cases isn’t necessarily to put people in jail, but to apply pressure on fossil fuel companies to change their business model. The best outcome, he says, would be a bellwether case that led to a significant settlement or court order, like Purdue Pharma’s recent $4.5 billion settlement over its role in the deadly opioid epidemic.
Even if climate homicide cases aren’t initially successful, Merner says these lawsuits could reveal critical information about the industry’s behavior.
In late July, for example, Ohio-based Marathon Petroleum released documents as part of a lawsuit brought by the city of Honolulu against several fossil fuel companies for allegedly violating public- and private-nuisance laws. The files showed the company knew almost fifty years ago that global temperature rise linked to their product could eventually cause “widespread starvation and other social and economic calamities.”
In the Big Tobacco cases, this discovery process played an important role in shifting public opinion, as the industry had to disclose internal scientific studies and corporate communication that showed just how clearly the companies knew their products were causing harm.
“That was really when the industry said, ‘Oh no, we don’t want all of this out there,’” Merner says. “Those pieces can be really transformative for how the public sees these industries, because they can understand what’s really happening.”
Awaiting Justice
In late June of 2021, the National Weather Service announced a warning for residents of Oregon. A looming high-pressure system had effectively trapped a mass of hot air over the Northwest, like a lid on a simmering pot. The forecast predicted “life-threatening” conditions.
Jollene “Jolly” Brown was one of many Portland-area residents who weren’t ready for it. The sixty-seven-year-old lived alone in an apartment, and her air conditioner was broken. As the mercury climbed, Brown’s son Shane stopped by one evening to see if he could fix it. She shrugged her situation off, saying, “I’ll get through it.” By the next morning, the city’s crisping hills shimmered, the air blistering as soon as you opened the door. The sidewalks grew hot enough to give third-degree burns.
When Brown didn’t answer his calls, Shane drove over and found his mother had passed away in her recliner. Inside, it was 99.5 degrees. Brown was one of sixty-nine people to eventually die in Multnomah County, where Portland is located. The record-breaking heat dome was the county’s largest-ever single mortality event.
“Even in an environmentally conscious community like Multnomah County, people never imagined it would be 124 degrees in downtown Portland,” said Jeffrey Simon, a trial lawyer and outside counsel to Multnomah County. “And so they weren’t ready for it.”
Like Brown, many lacked air-conditioning; it didn’t used to be necessary.
Simon is now helping Multnomah County sue fossil fuel companies for $52 billion in damages and future costs for climate adaptation — one of the most ambitious civil lawsuits to date.
While no criminal climate cases have yet been filed in the U.S., Multnomah County’s effort is part of a groundswell of civil lawsuits against Big Oil. The attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, as well as dozens of municipal governments have recently filed cases against major oil and gas companies.
Part of the impetus, says Multnomah County chair Jessica Vega Pederson, is that managing the climate emergency is extremely expensive. In a written statement, she said, “They have profited massively from their lies and left the rest of us to suffer the consequences and pay for the damages.”
The 2021 heat dome is a harbinger of what’s to come. Since 2015, says Chris Voss, the director of emergency management for Multnomah County, the county has seen a dramatic uptick in people seeking heat-related medical assistance. Last year, for the first time, the County allocated $2.3 million just to deal with severe weather as part of its regular budget cycle. Now, “we have these events every summer,” Voss says.
While extreme heat is the deadliest natural disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency doesn’t offer assistance for events like heat domes. That’s because the Stafford Act, the federal law that gives the agency the authority to respond to emergencies, doesn’t include heat in its list of major disasters. Last year, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona) introduced legislation to add heat to FEMA’s classification, but the bill failed to progress. This June, 14 attorney generals petitioned the agency to expand its list to include extreme heat and wildfire smoke.
In the meantime, local governments like Multnomah County have been left to grapple with the rising costs of climate change alone. That’s especially true in small jurisdictions, Voss says, which can be severely impacted without the damage reaching the necessary financial thresholds to qualify for state assistance. These are the kinds of costs Multnomah’s lawsuit aims to recoup from fossil fuel companies.
But climate lawsuits are not just about recouping losses; they’re about changing people’s minds. Elisa, mourning for her mother in Montreal, hopes these legal tactics can help shatter the illusion that these disasters will only affect someone else.
“If we talk about our own experiences, and how climate change affects us personally, and the people we love,” she says, people are “going to realize that this can happen to anyone — to everyone.”
Before the flood, Elisa’s mother had recently retired and was loving spending time in her garden. Two days before it hit, when Elisa called to show off her new son, she admired the strawberries and raspberries her mother had just picked. That’s what Elisa was remembering when her older son recently asked how his grandmother died.
“I told him the truth, but without too much explanation,” she says. “I just said that it was a storm, and she was in the house, and the house was [taken] away by the water.”
Last month, another devastating flood swept over the Alps, killing at least seven in the same region where Elisa’s mother died. A few weeks after that, an extreme heatwave swept over Oregon, killing 17 others.
Environmental scholar Joanna Macy says the only alternative to despair is something she calls active hope, or the idea that hope is something we do, not something we have. Elisa has come to the same conclusion.
To her, that means taking steps to hold the people who made this crisis accountable. In 2022, ExxonMobil made a record nearly $56 billion in profit. That’s more than $100,000 every minute. And last year, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell collectively made another $85.6 billion — producing more oil and gas in the U.S. than ever before.
Elisa still struggles to talk about what happened to her mom. “I feel like I’m putting myself naked in the middle of the road, basically.”
But she worries about the environment her children are growing up in. At the end of July, the Earth hit the highest temperatures in recorded history — twice. It’s heartbreaking to know the world she was born into has vanished. In Elisa’s lifetime, Montreal’s climate is expected to match that of southwestern Kentucky’s.
“It’s just going to happen again and again and again,” she says. And she wants to be able to tell her kids that she did what she could to try to turn things around, that as hard as it is to talk about her mother’s death, “I tried something.”
===
SHELL DEFECTOR (when was court loss?]
https://news.yahoo.com/1-shell-quit-u-refining-105931571.html
reuters
UPDATE 7-Citing climate differences, Shell walks away from U.S. refining lobby
By Ron Bousso
April 2, 2019
* Shell to leave AFPM in 2020 over climate "misalignment"
* Shell releases first report on links with industry groups
* Investor welcomes report as "industry first" (Adds comment from French oil major Total)
By Ron Bousso
LONDON, April 2 (Reuters) - Royal Dutch Shell Plc on Tuesday became the first major oil and gas company to announce plans to leave a leading U.S. refining lobby due to disagreement on climate policies, citing its support for the goals of the Paris climate agreement.
In its first review of its association with 19 key industry groups, Shell said it had found "material misalignment" over climate policy with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and would quit the body in 2020.
The review is part of Shell's drive to increase transparency and show investors it is in line with the 2015 Paris climate agreement's goals to limit global warming by reducing carbon emissions to a net zero by the end of the century.
It is the latest sign of how investor pressure on oil companies, particularly in Europe, is leading to changes in their behavior around climate. Last year, Shell caved in to investor pressure over climate change, setting out plans to introduce industry-leading carbon emissions targets linked to executive pay.
Its chief executive, Ben van Beurden, has since repeatedly urged oil and gas producers to take action over climate and pollution, staking out a more radical position than the heads of other major oil companies.
"AFPM has not stated support for the goal of the Paris Agreement. Shell supports the goal of the Paris Agreement," the Anglo-Dutch company said in its decision.
"The need for urgent action in response to climate change has become ever more obvious since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015. As a result, society's expectations in this area have changed, and Shell's views have also evolved," van Beurden said in the report.
The company has disagreed with AFPM on a number of issues for some time, according to two lobbying sources. Shell said it also disagreed with AFPM's opposition to a price on carbon and action on low-carbon technologies.
Shell and AFPM have also been at odds in recent months over regulation over the use of renewable fuels. While Shell and other large refiners invested in cleaner fuel technology, AFPM has fought hard against standards requiring refiners to blend or subsidize the blending of biofuels into the gasoline pool - saying it hurts independent refiners.
Shell and rivals Exxon and BP have in recent years left the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative political group, over its stance on climate change.
AFPM Chief Executive Chet Thompson thanked Shell for its "longstanding collaboration."
"We will also continue working on behalf of the refining and petrochemical industries to advance policies that ensure reliable and affordable access to fuels and petrochemicals, while being responsible stewards of the environment," Thompson said in a statement.
AFPM counts around 300 U.S. and international members including Exxon Mobil Corp, Chevron Corp, BP Plc and Total SA that operate 110 refineries and 229 petrochemical plants, according to its 2018 annual report.
French oil major Total said in a statement to Reuters that consensus required by organizations such as AFPM does not always reflect its position, and that it regularly monitors the relevance of its participation.
"In this case, Total takes a pro-active approach in order to convince its peers, particularly on climate issues. In case of differing points of view, Total publicly defends its position, and is ready to reconsider its participation in case of disagreement," the company said.
Total said it was fully aware of climate issues, has publicly recognized them and takes them into its strategy.
Shell's review was welcomed by Adam Matthews, director of ethics and engagement for the Church of England Pensions Board, which invests in Shell and led discussions with the company over its climate policy.
"This is an industry first," Matthews said. "With this review Shell have set the benchmark for best practice on corporate climate lobbying not just within oil and gas but across all industries. The challenge now is for others to follow suit."
WALK AWAY
Shell also found "some" misalignment with nine other trade associations, including the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's main lobby.
Shell said that while it had some climate-related differences with theAPI, it welcomed the lobby's advocacy on a range of state and federal issues such as trade and transport, as well as the API's efforts to reduce methane emissions.
Shell said it will continue to engage with the API and other groups over climate policies and monitor their alignment.
Shell last month urged President Donald Trump's administration to tighten restrictions on emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, instead of weakening them as planned.
(Reporting by Ron Bousso; Additional reporting by Jarrett Renshaw in New York and Bate Felix in Paris; Editing by Louise Heavens, Emelia Sithole-Matarise, Lisa Shumaker and Leslie Adler)
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Shell-warns-U-S-trade-groups-it-may-leave-over-16084555.php
ENERGY
Shell threatens to leave US trade groups over climate disagreements
Paul Takahashi Staff writer
April 8, 2021
Shell’s move reassessing its trade group memberships comes as the European oil giant moves from its longtime fossil fuels business to meet its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
European oil major Royal Dutch Shell on Wednesday urged U.S. oil and gas trade groups to take stronger positions in the fight against climate change under the threat of leaving them.
The Netherlands-based oil major took aim at the American Petroleum Institute, the Texas Oil & Gas Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pushing them to support and advocate for climate policies in line with the Paris climate agreement. The 2015 agreement aims to limit the rise in the average global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Shell’s move reassessing its trade group memberships comes as the European oil giant moves from its longtime fossil fuels business to meet its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
“We must be confident that our participation in industry associations is consistent with our views on climate action,” Van Beurden said. “Our memberships should strengthen and not undermine our support of the goal of the Paris Agreement and the global drive to achieve net-zero emissions.”
A BALANCE: API says U.S. must grow oil and gas while reducing emissions
API and the U.S. oil and gas industry face mounting pressure from their European members, which have moved aggressively over the past year to address climate change. Shell, Total and BP are investing heavily in wind and solar power, as well as electric vehicle charging stations, to prepare for a low-carbon future.Their largest American counterparts, Chevron and Exxon Mobil, have been slower to adopt renewables,instead working to reduce carbon emissions from their oil and gas operations through investments in carbon capture and storage technology.
Shell said API, the largest U.S. oil and gas trade association, has not stated publicly that it supports net-zero emissions, even though its chief executive said in January that the group supports the ambitions of the Paris Agreement. The company urged API to explicitly support the goals of the Paris Agreement, carbon pricing and direct regulation of methane emissions, a powerful greenhouse gas.
“Shell continues to urge API to take a more proactive and constructive approach to climate-related policy and advocacy, in line with the goal of the Paris Agreement,” the company said.
API spokeswoman Bethany Aronhalt said that the oil and gas industry is tackling climate change by working to reduce emissions while at the same time incentivizing lower-carbon innovations.
PULLING THE REINS: API president criticizes energy transition as moving too fast
Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden
“The scope of this challenge is big enough for a variety of solutions, and every company has a unique approach,” Aronhalt said in an email. “As an association representing 600 companies of varying sizes and segments of the industry, we know there is more that unites us than divides us, and each member brings an important voice to our advocacy efforts. We look forward to continuing to partner with Shell to advance innovative solutions for a lower carbon future and ensure API is at the forefront of the debate over how to address climate change while maintaining access to affordable, reliable energy around the world.”
Pressure is mounting on API and other oil and gas trade groups to change their views on climate policies.
Total in January said it will leave API over “certain divergences” in approaches climate change. The French oil major, which has a significant presence in Houston, said it disagreed with API’s opposition to electric vehicle subsidies and its endorsement of political candidates who argued against U.S. participation in the Paris climate agreement.
Total is developing 16 solar farms in the U.S., including nine in Texas, to achieve its net-zero greenhouse gas emissions goals and to generate 40 percent of its sales from renewable power by 2050.
HISTORIC MOVE: Shell admits its oil production is now on the decline
BP, which also has ambitions to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, said in January that it is monitoring its membership in trade associations, particularly those it views as being only “partially aligned” with the company on climate-related issues.The company, however, said it remains committed to trying to influence those associations from within and will give an update on its memberships by the middle of this year.
Shell said it sees many benefits of its memberships in the trade associations, and believes that it is more effective working on climate change policies as a member of an association rather than on the outside. But it warned that in cases where it finds “material misalignment” with an association, it will not hesitate to reassess its membership. Shell in 2019 left the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers association after it found substantial disagreements with the group over climate policies.
“When we see little possibility of change, we are prepared to walk away,” Van Beurden said.
paul.takahashi@chron.com
twitter.com/paultakahashi
axios
hOUSTON — CEOs of multinational oil-and-gas giants Exxon and TotalEnergies gave remarks at a major industry gathering here that underscore Big Oil's differing diversification strategies across the Atlantic.
What they're saying: Exxon CEO Darren Woods touted Exxon's emphasis on carbon capture, hydrogen and biofuels.
- "We are a company that has a real long history in frankly, manipulating hydrocarbon molecules to make products that the world needs," Woods said at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference.
- "Andif you think about the technology that we have been using and will use in this space, it's is continuing to manage hydrocarbon molecules and leveraging the skills that we've developed over the years," he said.
The other side: Patrick Pouyanné citedTotalEnergies' moves into areas including renewable power,electricity services, batteries and EV charging that TotalEnergies and other European majors like BP and Shellare increasingly pursuing.
- "The transition is a matter of two types of new products: new molecules, on which obviously an oil-and-gas company, some DNA, it's biofuels, biogas, hydrogen, and the strategic move we have decided that we will become an electricity and renewable producer and supplier," he said.
Of note: Traditional fossil fuels remain the dominant business lines of all the majors.=
===
api spooked by defection?
https:/**/influencemap.org/**influencer/American-Petroleum-Institute-API
sum:
Climate Lobbying Overview: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly hostile to progressive climate policy. It does not seem to fully support the need to drastically cut emissions to limit global temperature increase to below 2C and seems to have pushed a deregulatory agenda over ambitious climate action. It does not seem to support the transition of the energy mix, emphasizing the importance of oil and gas to the American economy and opposing measures to limit fossil fuel development. Furthermore, it also appears to not support several other policies intended to cut emissions such as renewable fuel standards and carbon taxation.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be broadly unsupportive of progressive climate policy in its top-line messaging. Although in various comments throughout 2020, it has indicated general support for unspecified levels of emissions reductions to respond to climate change, this does not appear to be aligned with IPCC advice. For example, in July 2020, it appeared to question the feasibility of reaching net-zero emissions, following statements in December 2019 that the technology “does not yet exist” to limit temperature rise to well below 2°C.
It appears to emphasize that climate policies should not compromise economic growth, as well as appearingto prioritize market-based mechanisms over other kinds of policy. In March 2021, it was reported that the API would change its position and start to support carbon pricingas the "primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions", while still appearing to not support other "prescriptive regulatory action".
Comments from CEO Mike Sommers in December 2020 also appear to suggest that government regulation to respond to climate change is unnecessary. In his keynote speech for the API's annual State of American Energy report in 2021, Sommers said 'Mandates get us nowhere', and that the surest way to bring recovery to a stop following COVID-19 was with 'more regulations, more taxes, more restrictions on access' to federal lands and waters for oil and gas development.
The American Petroleum Institute has not taken a formal position on theParis Agreement but in December 2019 stated it supported the “ambition” of the agreement. This position was repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy report, however, in the same report, API called the goals of the Paris Agreement ‘aggressive’ and seemed to be ambiguous as to whether the U.S. should participate in meeting the goals.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: The American Petroleum Institute appears to be highly opposed to specific climate-related regulations and since the 2016 US election, the group seems to have promoted a deregulatory agenda in the country over ambitious policy to respond to climate change. API has continued to promote this deregulatory agenda in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 crisis, advocating President Trump waive testing and reporting requirements for a range of policies, including those relevant for GHG emissions.
The API has also continued to oppose specific policies intended to cut emissions. In October 2020, it stated it would oppose any carbon tax that would increase the price of US oil and gas exports, following comments from February 2019 submitted to the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee that “New and increased taxes… can only slow growth and investment.”In March 2021, the API announced an apparent change in its position to support carbon pricing, but still stopped short of explicitly endorsing a carbon tax. In addition, the API has heavily criticized the Renewable Fuels Standard, tweeting in April 2020 that “it is time to get rid of this broken mandate”. Furthermore, in November 2019, the API directly advocated against the EPA’s proposed increases in biofuel blending requirements under the Renewable Energy Standard. API has again called for the repeal of the RFS in January 2021.[ETHANOL?]
Until January 2021, the API appeared to strongly oppose regulation of methane emissions, supporting the EPA rollback of methane regulations in August 2020, reportedly **having previously met with White House and EPA staff in an attempt to loosen these regulations**.In addition, in the first quarter of 2020, API appears to have **opposed**more ambitious oil well bonding legislation that would require industry to commit more money to fix methane leaks from abandoned wells.
In January 2021, however, the API appears to have reversedits position on the federal and direct regulation of methane and has now stated it supports such a policy. This follows Total S.A revoking its membership to API after the industry association's State of American Energy address. In its communications on methane regulation, API has stated it would support 'sensible' and 'workable' regulations. It remains unclear at this point what API deems sensible and workable with regard to methane regulation. In May 2021, the API appeared to not fully support an ambitious implementation of methane regulation under the PIPES Act, stating in a submission to that "stringent regulatory mandates... must consider the cost to ratepayers and the ability of utilities to effectively comply". In September 2021, the API coordinated with other oil and gas industry groups to send a joint letter to the Committee on Environment and Public Works opposing the Methane Emissions Reduction Act of 2021, which would introduce a tax on methane emissions from oil and gas operations.
Positioning on Energy Transition:API does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix.In its public messaging, it has repeatedly stressed the importance of oil and gas to the US economy and US national security and in June 2019 argued that oil and gas “will supply more than half of America’s energy needs for decades to come”.[ROWE]
API’s preferred method of reducing emissions appears to becoal-to-natural-gas switching, which it also claimsis essential to support renewable energy expansion. However, it shows mixed support for government measures to actually phase coal out of the energy mix. In August 2019, it appeared to oppose government intervention to prohibit new or expanded coal mines, but in May 2019, it opposed legislation in Ohio that would introduce subsidies for coal power plants and in July 2018, it appeared to oppose federal plans to bailout uneconomic coal plants.
It appears to have lobbied heavily in favor of measures that will help maintain a high GHG energy mix, for example in November 2020, supporting the removal of restrictions on oil and gas production in theArctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as suggesting punitive measures, such as preventing access to Covid-19 relief funding, for banks that have chosen not to fund Arctic-drilling projects.
API appears to oppose government interventionthat will limit fossil fuel development. For example, in September 2020, API opposed an expanded moratorium on offshore oil and gas development off the coast of Florida and in November 2020, CEO Mike Sommers stated that API would use ‘“every tool at its disposal” including legal action’ to block a proposed ban on fracking on federal land and water.
Furthermore, statements from August 2020 suggest API appears to support continued subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, arguing these are “tax loopholes and deductions available to all industries”. These positions have been repeated in its 2021 State of American Energy Report, in which API argues against a ban on fracking, opposing restrictions on federal waters and land for oil and gas production, the weakening of the National Environmental Policy Act and renewalof the Nationwide Permit 12 program– both of which serve to make permitting approval processes for oil and gas infrastructure quicker and easier.
In addition, API does not appear to support the electrification of transport. In the first half of 2020, API launched the Transportation Fairness Alliance, a coalition described by Desmog as intended “to counter policies designed to accelerate the transition away from petroleum-powered transportation”. API appears to have opposed several specific policies to encourage the electrification of transport in 2020, including the rebate for drivers who trade in ICE vehicles for EVs as well as financial incentives for electric vehicles. In its 2021 State of American Energy report, API again opposed policies designed to incentivize the uptake of electric vehicles, arguing that subsidies, credits and sales mandates, that favor electric vehicles, like those in California, would ‘hinder America’s progress’.
InfluenceMap
Score F
===
only corp to defect from API? GUK
...Growing public disquiet, and the departure of oil-friendly Donald Trump from the White House, shifted the ground for API. In March it launched a Climate Action Framework, which for the first time endorsed policies such as carbon pricing. It also stated its support for the Paris climate agreement.
API called the plan “robust” but others noted the lack of specifics and its sincerity was called into question when an Exxon lobbyist was caught on camera earlier this year saying that a carbon tax will never happen and that support for the measure was a public relations ploy intended to stall more serious measures.
And between API’s lost support from Total, and the Shell executives who resigned in December over what they regarded as the company’s foot-dragging on greener fuels, there are signs of shifting attitudes within the industry itself.
Shell and BP have said they will continue to review their support for API. Shell said that where it disagrees with API’s position, the company “will pursue advocacy separately”....
===
chevron and total pull out of burma myanmar hu rights and lack of rule of law?
1/22 kpfa
===
http://www.alternet.org/environment/worlds-fourth-biggest-oil-company-vows-go-big-green-power
==
exxon greenwash desmog
The report focuses on the world’s five largest listed oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Total, and Chevron, leaving out state-controlled oil giants like Saudi Aramco and China’s Sinopec.
InfluenceMap examined the extent to which each company’s branding efforts and advertising campaigns focused on climate change.
Shell's branded content about its emissions scenario in The New York Times
Shell’s branded content about its “Sky” emissions scenario in The New York Times.
“The research suggests that Total maintains the highest proportion of its branding activities on climate (29 percent),” the new report finds. “Following this, ExxonMobil, which has faced significant negative media attention in 2018, allocates 19 percent. Shell and BP followed with 16 percent and 14 percent respectively. Chevron appears far less concerned, using approximately 2 percent of its branding budget on climate issues in 2018.”
The think tank’s research also looked at what the companies were saying to government regulators, either directly or through industry groups funded by the oil majors.
“Since Paris, Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil have led in opposition to a range of climate-motivated policy stands,” InfluenceMap wrote. “For example, in 2018 both BP and Chevron have directly lobbied U.S. policymakers for a rollback on U.S. methane requirements.” (Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and the major constituent in natural gas.)
The report credits Shell and Total for becoming “more positive on a number of climate policy issues” since 2015, but adds that they “continue to support policies that will extend the role for fossil fuels in the energy mix and remain part of highly climate-oppositional trade associations.”
Mixed Messages and Industry Trade Groups
At times, the public stances of a corporation’s leadership stand starkly at odds with the messages from industry groups funded by that same corporation.
For example, on electric vehicles, Shell’s CEO Ben Van Beurden had a very direct and simple message in July 2018. “We need battery electric vehicles,” he said. And a year earlier, at the oil industry conference, CERAWeek, in 2017, he expressed support for “regulations that speed up investment in low carbon technologies and ? at the same time ? move consumer demand.”
Oil and gas lobbying on climate policies through trade associations. Credit: InfluenceMap, 2019
In May 2018, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. trade group for oil and gas, pushed the U.S. Congress to move in the opposite direction by rolling back incentives for electric vehicles.
“American Petroleum Institute (API) opposes mandates and subsidies,” API testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, according to InfluenceMap’s new report. The fossil fuel trade group voiced its opposition for subsidies for electric vehicles, adding that “the level of market penetration achieved by electric vehicles should not rely on government interference.”
The report also notes the difficulty in tracking corporate lobbying in the U.S. given the rise of so-called “dark money” groups and the lack of transparency surrounding political contributions in the U.S. “Political contributions that were made without full disclosure of their ultimate source totaled $539 [million] in the 2018 election cycle according to OpenSecrets.org,” the report says.
Social Influencers
InfluenceMap also dives deep into how companies usedsocial media to influence Americans during the mid-term elections last year.
“During this time ExxonMobil was by far the most prolific spender, racking up over $400K in four weeks on over 360 individual political ads,” InfluenceMap wrote. “The ads urge rejecting specific ballot initiatives whilst promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production. Facebook’s data indicates that ExxonMobil’s ads made over 10 million ‘impressions’ in this time with users in Colorado, Texas, and Louisiana.”
Oil industry spending on Facebook and Instagram ads leading up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Credit: InfluenceMap, 2019
All of this spending has implications for shareholders, InfluenceMap observed — and some shareholder groups appear to be listening.
“InfluenceMap’s research confirms a widely held suspicion that Big Oil’s glossy sustainability reports and shiny climate statements are all rhetoric and no action,” Catherine Howarth, Chief Executive of ShareAction, a UK charity focused on responsible investment, said in a statement accompanying the report. “These companies have mastered the art of corporate doublespeak — by boasting about their climate credentials while quietly using their lobbying firepower to sabotage the implementation of sensible climate policy and pouring millions into groups that engage in dirty lobbying on their behalf.”
DeSmog has reached out to ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Total, and Chevron for comment....
===
Total S.A. (French pronunciation: [tɔtal]; English /:{toʊˈtæl:(style="border-bottom:1px dotted"):}:/ or /:{toʊˈtɑːl:(style="border-bottom:1px dotted"):}:/) is a French multinational integrated oil and gas company and one of the six "Supermajor" oil companies in the world. Its businesses cover the entire oil and gas chain, from crude oil and natural gas exploration and production to power generation, transportation, refining, petroleum product marketing, and international crude oil and product trading. Total is also a large-scale chemicals manufacturer. The company has its head office in the Tour Total in La Défense district in Courbevoie, west of Paris. The company is a component of the Euro Stoxx 50 stock market index.[2]